From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25F11389E2 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 31841E0913; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:05:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com (mail-la0-f52.google.com [209.85.215.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7B9BE08BD for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:05:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id q1so961426lam.11 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:05:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6pTSCJWfckdoIXOMj20KbpGh7LIJqN50lQ2WXAoyNk4=; b=DgskUZYD8tibsd+0pFsA7x8FOlQjU09YsJ1ceQKJR5Dz+iTwyX+/2jwqQgekLk2qgw rTEDGfu1DaitxFISNVJGJ1eQSXaeZQjfGzvu4Ae2NIk4hqUt5ugFzk5/3ER2G7IqO1xc Rqv6LjKIHV7h0kFsQ4M5r+B3WPXOdh4/DUK60lRqPNTXS1V+PbMQk5EIuk2BUqQHAjoR E6XZMCXiybQ1THkp4qLSsbFDSEnBzh/ClFsgKNexoWGad98HnAzR4JmfQht8iQ0TEtty N1s9bBZyRGFWXI3oJM2zIq/+2jOATY8W8B1v2NpD1rQdbnV0c8XPk+jIVA7xvubEvhWB QoYw== X-Received: by 10.152.203.199 with SMTP id ks7mr28665777lac.31.1416935143210; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:05:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from cosmo ([193.200.85.246]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u2sm492456laj.1.2014.11.25.09.05.42 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:05:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5474b6e6.0225980a.1358.1d24@mx.google.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:03:43 +0200 From: Gevisz To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now In-Reply-To: <54744FCE.8090800@gmail.com> References: <546EE70C.2050506@yourstruly.sx> <20141121173600.GA1029@ca.inter.net> <547370D2.50009@marc-stuermer.de> <54737886.a3a7700a.6f81.4209@mx.google.com> <20141124210516.53a54a90@digimed.co.uk> <54742d25.a576c20a.4d91.2ae4@mx.google.com> <54744FCE.8090800@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 44a7b75b-0a2d-49b8-967e-c7ee9a588320 X-Archives-Hash: da22df4591288269dae7284bc01e8537 On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:45:50 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 25/11/2014 09:15, Gevisz wrote: > >> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was > >> > logical, ergonomic and saved screen space. > > Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible > > to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that > > it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept > > the window frame close button at its usual place, but > > it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway. > > This is incorrect. > > Unity has always been able to reposition the window control > buttons, right from the first release. I still have Ubuntu 12.04 (with Unity) on one of my partitions (but never use it for more that 5 minutes from the startup to shutdown, anyway :). So, I can check if your statement is true. Just tell me how to reposition the window control buttons in Unity. I promise to report the result of this test here. Back in 2012, after trying to find how to do it, I looked into Ubuntu forum and found out that many users complained about it and always got the answer that it is impossible and that Ubuntu developers know better what the users need than the users itself. But even if you prove to be right (which I very much doubt), for me it turned out easier to find out how to install and maintain Gentoo (with gnome2, dwm and xfce4) than to find out how to reposition the window control buttons in Unity.